Influx of Big Content lawyers at DoJ: cause for concern?

Some IP reformers are uneasy about a series of content industry lawyers bound …

Advocates for intellectual property reform are sounding skittish about the emerging upper echelon of Barack Obama's Justice Department, which is shaping up as a who's-who of star litigators for the music, movie, and software industries. The most recent addition to a long roster, prospective Associate Deputy Attorney General Donald Verrilli, is a veteran of several of the highest-profile IP cases seen in recent years, on the side of stronger and more aggressive copyright protection in each case.

Verrili represented Viacom in its billion-dollar suit against YouTube, which sought to compel the video streaming site to more aggressively police user-submitted content for copyright infringement, articulating a legal theory that YouTube's lawyers say would vitiate service providers' "safe harbor" immunity against liability for user conduct. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of copyright owners in the Cablevision remote DVR case, arguing that the cable company's recording and streaming service was less a long-distance TiVo than a high-end Pirate Bay.

When the Recording Industry Association of America sought to block a retrial in the Jammie Thomas file-sharing case—preventing any reconsideration of the theory that "making available" a file is tantamount to infringing distribution—they called Verrilli. And in the landmark Grokster case, which held the makers of the peer-to-peer client responsible for facilitating infringement, Verrilli's name crops up again.

Verrilli caps a string of picks that have made free culture types squirm; his colleague at Jenner & Block, Thomas Perrelli, has been tapped for the number-three spot at Justice. Beloved by the RIAA, Perrelli too has argued on the industry's behalf in several cases against accused file-sharers. He also helped persuade the Copyright Royalty Board to jack up the rates paid by webcasters—and collected by the RIAA on behalf of members and nonmembers alike.

In line for the position of associate deputy attorney general is Neil MacBride, a former lawyer to Vice President Joe Biden last seen acting as general counsel for the Business Software Alliance. And the country's number-two lawyer will be David Ogden, who was part of the government team defending retroactive copyright extension in Eldred v. Ashcroft and orchestrated the defense of the now-defunct Child Online Protection Act. Some lists of "industry" lawyers bound for justice have have included David Kris, who recently spent several years at Time Warner and will soon head the DoJ's National Security Division.

Is there really cause for concern?

So how much cause for genuine concern is there? Worries about Ogden and Kris, at the very least, border on the ludicrous. Though all of the appointees would be expected to recuse themselves from involvement in cases or decisions implicating former clients, Kris is an expert on surveillance and intelligence law who would rarely have occasion to influence IP issues in any event. Ogden, meanwhile, would simply have been tasked with defending the government's position in whatever cases he was assigned. Tellingly, he has also been attacked by the socially conservative group Fidelis for his work on behalf of gay rights and free speech. To be sure, his defense of Playboy and Penthouse, like his defense of COPA, should be viewed above all as an attorney's faithful representation of his client's interests, but the former, at least, were cases voluntarily undertaken in private practice.

For the same reason—and because it's psychologically difficult to consistently defend the same position without at least somewhat internalizing it—concerns about Verrilli, MacBride, and Perrelli may be marginally more justifiable. Still, the obligation of recusal makes them unlikely to have a prominent role in such IP litigation as the Justice Department sees fit to intervene in. Moreover, the Justice Department already successfully fought off an attempt to deputize government lawyers as copyright cops. If there's a genuine worry about someone like Perrelli, it's not that he'd turn the power of the state on Kazaa users, but that he might not be inclined to complain as loudly the next time such a proposal is mooted.

That said, the angst over the recent picks seems, above all, like an instance of what social psychologists call the "fundamental attribution error": The tendency to weight intrinsic character or disposition too heavily, and social circumstances too lightly, when explaining observed behavior. We know, for instance, that when test subjects are asked to guess the opinion of an essay's author, they will assume that the author agrees with his essay even if they are told the author was instructed to defend that position. Perhaps these appointees took the cases they did because of a deep commitment to an expansive view of copyright. But isn't it more parsimonious to observe that the RIAA pays well?

Update: Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge basically agrees with the notion that one shouldn't read too much into arguments lawyers make in defense of their clients, but also suggests that future appointments strive for "balance":

Regardless, the appointment of three prominent attorneys with strong ties to the content industry does highlight the need for more balance in the numerous Obama Administration positions yet to be filled. Most prominently, neither the IP Coordinator nor the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director have been named, nor have their deputies. Ditto for the Deputies and General Counsel of the United States Trade Representative. Even the Director of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (an Assistant Secretary of Commerce) is important for copyright, as the NTIA has some say over the operation of the DMCA triennial review, and has often been the voice of innovation in debates over copyright in the Executive Branch.

42 Reader Comments

Perhaps these appointees took the cases they did because of a deep commitment to an expansive view of copyright. But isn't it more parsimonious to observe that the RIAA pays well?

I find it a shame that this reasoning is so pervasive when discussing lawyers. Higher than the responsibility to advocate your client's interest is the fact that lawyers are officers of the court. Being paid well does not absolve your ethical duties to the judicial system and society.

After all, investment bankers have the same mantra about being paid well, and now our banking system is on the brink of collapse. Ethics matter and these types of lawyers do injustice to their profession and hurt America's credibility as a fair legal system. We should hold lawyers to a higher standard than simply pursuing a client's misguided, unethical interests.

Those expecting an Obama administration to support anarchy are going to be disappointed. Concern about property is central to our legal system and will continue to be so. So will the right of participants in legal controveries to hire lawyers whose job it is to plead their case. Inevitably technological developments will force an evolution in the laws covering intellectual property. But the continuing growth of a knowledge based economy will continue to put more emphasis on the laws covering copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property. Obama likely is in favor of more effective forms of these laws. But he is not a thief or an anarchist.

This is hysterical. Imagine for a moment if this was the Bush admin putting these guys in place...I guarantee we wouldn't be getting a "well, they aren't all that bad, it's ok" article from Ars on the topic.

That may be because you can pretty safely guess what kind of direction the Bush administration would be pushing the DoJ. For him to acquire such big name players in the field would be scary. Obama hasn't come out strongly in either direction on these sorts of issues (that I know of).

Regarding the first post, the lawyers are required to represent their client to the best of their abilities (zealously in some states still I think). Nothing they did was was illegal or legally unethical, unless you call "using all the legal tools at their disposal" unethical. Their conduct hardly threaten the integrity of our legal system.

Those expecting an Obama administration to support anarchy are going to be disappointed.

Go fuck yourself.

People who want their rights to actually use and own what they purchase are not thieves, crooks, nor anarchists. Fucking shit eating pukes who demand that all consumers give up all rights in all circumstances will find that consumers simply decide they don't want to pay for the shit, and suddenly the economy fails ... again.

The demented concept that intellectual "property" has the same value as your fucking garage is stupid. Perpetually "renting" out everything that has some form of intellectual property attached is used purely and entirely to avoid existing laws.

Originally posted by JCool:This is hysterical. Imagine for a moment if this was the Bush admin putting these guys in place...I guarantee we wouldn't be getting a "well, they aren't all that bad, it's ok" article from Ars on the topic.

Thanks for the guarantee. I'll assume that it's worth what I paid for it.

At least you get to feel satisfied at your positive contribution to the on-topic discussion we're having...

Originally posted by Boneman:That may be because you can pretty safely guess what kind of direction the Bush administration would be pushing the DoJ. For him to acquire such big name players in the field would be scary. Obama hasn't come out strongly in either direction on these sorts of issues (that I know of).

People who want their rights to actually use and own what they purchase are not thieves, crooks, nor anarchists.

No they are not. However the bad apples do what bad apples do best. Spoil it for everyone else.

quote:

Fucking shit eating pukes who demand that all consumers give up all rights in all circumstances will find that consumers simply decide they don't want to pay for the shit, and suddenly the economy fails ... again.

The issue for most isn't "not purchasing the content". It's obtaining the content without paying. There is a difference.

quote:

The demented concept that intellectual "property" has the same value as your fucking garage is stupid.

Doesn't matter if it has the same value or not. It matters if one treats it with the same respect.

I think it's unfortunate that these people are lawyers, but as it's the DoJ, I suppose it can't be helped...

I think the important thing is in divining what continuing contacts these lawyers continue to have with their previous employers after they leave. I'm not optimistic about clean breaks and 180-degree turnarounds, personally.

Julian, you've yet to pick up on two of the primary rules of Obama's presidency:

1. If you're part of a group that gave him lots of votes, you're screwed. The prime example are all the young people who voted for him. They're the ones who will be paying interest on this nearly trillion dollar stimulus/pork bill for the rest of their lives. The Government Accounting Office has already issued a report warning that, ten years out, all that new debt will become a permanent drag on the economy. The younger you are, the more harm you will suffer.

2. If you're part of a group that wrote him big checks during his campaign, you'll be pampered and petted. The prime example is the Hollywood-New York axis of the entertainment industry. They're the one's Obama is eager to please. They're the ones who giggled when he referred to most of middle-America as bitter, angry and clinging to God and guns in his private (but leaked) speech to the very wealthy. That's the real Obama.

Group 2 knows what it wants and will be getting it. They're no fools. The real issue is whether Group 1, seduced by vague talk about "hope and change," is clever enough to figure out what is happening. Look for Obama and company to do what the Democratic party did to keep the poor whites from rebelling in the segregated South of my youth--lots and lots a hate talk demonizing anyone who is a threat to them. It's started with his attacks on Rush Limbaugh, but it won't stop there.

Too bad group 1 are too seduced by the Idea of Obama to ever realize how much they helped screw over their own futures, they ate up the whole fake "change" BS he spouted and now they and my children will be stuck with the mess he's going to leave.

They're the ones who will be paying interest on this nearly trillion dollar stimulus/pork bill for the rest of their lives.

Yes, you so quickly forgot that we already have a trillion to pay for due to the Iraq clusterfuck. At least the money spent will be done here, instead of over there, which caused inflation of the dollar, which caused the value of the dollar to go down, which then caused gas to go up, which caused inflation of basic food necessities.

Tell me, did your $600 "offset the loss of value of your house" as ex-president Bush wanted it to?

Those expecting an Obama administration to support anarchy are going to be disappointed. Concern about property is central to our legal system and will continue to be so. So will the right of participants in legal controveries to hire lawyers whose job it is to plead their case. Inevitably technological developments will force an evolution in the laws covering intellectual property. But the continuing growth of a knowledge based economy will continue to put more emphasis on the laws covering copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property. Obama likely is in favor of more effective forms of these laws. But he is not a thief or an anarchist.

It must be convenient to paint your detractors as thieves and anarchists rather than programmers, economists and musicians. I'm not sure how it furthers your ideals, however.

quote:

No they are not. However the bad apples do what bad apples do best. Spoil it for everyone else.

It'd be easier if you'd just say what you mean rather than espouse bad cliches, but I assume you're referring to the pirates establishing the purported rationale for DRM. The problem there is that the DRM doesn't stop the pirates, and what it does do is harm the very legitimate customers you no doubt think should stop "defending piracy" when all they want is to legally make backups or play DVDs on Linux or put non-iTMS DRM music on an iPod.

quote:

The issue for most isn't "not purchasing the content". It's obtaining the content without paying. There is a difference.

There is a difference, but what makes you think that most people arguing against DRM and eternal copyright terms are on the side of the line you're alleging?

quote:

Doesn't matter if it has the same value or not. It matters if one treats it with the same respect.

But that's the whole issue, isn't it? It doesn't deserve the same respect because it's not the same thing. People have a constitutional right to property ownership. It's fundamental to our society. By contrast, it wouldn't take a communist revolution to repeal copyright, just a single act of congress. Copyright isn't a "right" (despite the disingenuous name), it's a privilege. An economic incentive. It doesn't deserve the same respect as the foundation of capitalist society.

Copyright isn't an end in itself that deserves to be furthered for its own sake, it's a trade off that should be pushed only so far as it yields better results for the "Progress of Science and useful Arts." And we are so far over the cost-benefit line on that one that people can no longer see it with a telescope and many have forgotten that it exists.

Well, at least this means that those guys are off the streets and in a public and well lit place where someone can keep an eye on them at all times. Maybe Obama is simply heeding the old saying, "keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer". ;-)

Perhaps these appointees took the cases they did because of a deep commitment to an expansive view of copyright. But isn't it more parsimonious to observe that the RIAA pays well?

I find it a shame that this reasoning is so pervasive when discussing lawyers. Higher than the responsibility to advocate your client's interest is the fact that lawyers are officers of the court. Being paid well does not absolve your ethical duties to the judicial system and society.

After all, investment bankers have the same mantra about being paid well, and now our banking system is on the brink of collapse. Ethics matter and these types of lawyers do injustice to their profession and hurt America's credibility as a fair legal system. We should hold lawyers to a higher standard than simply pursuing a client's misguided, unethical interests.

So are you accusing them of violating some canon of legal ethics? Which one? Did the suborn perjury? Did the help perpetuate a fraud on the court? Did they lie or deceive in their capacity as an attorney? Or did they just help bring perfectly legal lawsuits that you think are mean or reach unjust outcomes?

Imagine if lawyers refused to defend anyone they thought was guilty. Then anyone who was innocent but wrongly accused would never get a decent chance to prove their side of the story (all the lawyers would refuse the case so no one would look deeper).

Imagine if lawyers refused to represent companies or causes they felt were in the wrong. Then it's hard to imagine how the makers of silicon breast implants would have managed to have even the partial successes they did in defending against scientifically unjustified lawsuits.

Uncovering the true facts takes time and if lawyers refused to represent people who they guessed were in the wrong the justice system would be much more unfair. The ethical obligation of the lawyer is to zealously represent their clients so the court hears the best arguments for both sides not to decide who does and doesn't deserve to have their arguments presented.

Moreover, if we want a free society it's important that people retain the rights to do some things that might be morally disagreeable. Free speech includes the right to say nasty or hurtful things and to publish porn that others would condemn. if we start blaming lawyers for representing causes we dislike how does the "girls gone wild" guy get good representation? Just because he's slimy (and I say this as someone who fully approves of hardcore objectifying porn) doesn't mean his first amendment rights should be any less powerful.

Ultimately, it's easy to blame lawyers for representing a position that you find objectionable but when you ask what would happen if we all adopted that rule it becomes clear it would be a disaster. Unpopular individuals and institutions already face a legal system biased against them (juries and judges can't be totally objective) and increasing the pressure on lawyers not to defend these clients just makes things more unfair.

Originally posted by dnjake:Those expecting an Obama administration to support anarchy are going to be disappointed. Concern about property is central to our legal system and will continue to be so. So will the right of participants in legal controveries to hire lawyers whose job it is to plead their case. Inevitably technological developments will force an evolution in the laws covering intellectual property. But the continuing growth of a knowledge based economy will continue to put more emphasis on the laws covering copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property. Obama likely is in favor of more effective forms of these laws. But he is not a thief or an anarchist.

Yes, and except for a few crazies that is what all of us want. Everyone who considers this issues seriously from Larry Lessig to the RIAA agress that the law should provide economic rewards for artist and technological contributions. The argument is about how to do this efficently.

What bothers me (and Lessig) about our current copyright system is the massive economic inefficiency it creates. Extending copyright long past the length necessary to incentivize publication costs us untold billions if not trillions in derived works we never get to see. The transaction costs created by laws that require people work to keep something out of copyright prevent cause equal harm.

Even those of us who are skeptical of intellectual property in general are often motivated by a desire for more efficient compensation system. Unlike a car or a bike it costs virtually nothing to make an extra copy of a digital file. Thus every last person who is denied a copy of the latest single or that cool computer game is a glaring affront to praedo optimality. If we just gave away IP to every person who wouldn't otherwise be willing to buy it everyone would be better off.

We will never be able to design a perfect system to incentivize intellectual works but we can at least try to do better than we do now. Unfortunately, rather than trying to find the minimal restrictions we need to place on the use of other people's intellectual works to incentivize their creation lawmakers are caught up in this ridiculous idea that content creators have 'rights' over their work and that merely because they wrote it they deserve to control how it's used as well as receive compensation.

Imagine if lawyers refused to represent companies or causes they felt were in the wrong. Then it's hard to imagine how the makers of silicon breast implants would have managed to have even the partial successes they did in defending against scientifically unjustified lawsuits.

Your examples are of lawyers defending those who are being persecuted. It would be more rhetorically effective if you could somehow tug at the heartstrings while describing the people who initiate a lawsuit that results in injustice.

quote:

The ethical obligation of the lawyer is to zealously represent their clients so the court hears the best arguments for both sides not to decide who does and doesn't deserve to have their arguments presented.

The logic of this proposition is based on the theory that both sides have equal access to representation. When a team of corporate lawyers creates a lawsuit machine to capture economies of scale and then uses it to bring about what are essentially criminal penalties using the civil burden of proof and targeting individuals who can scarcely afford a single attorney much less a team of them, that assumption is no longer valid. The court can't very well "hear the best arguments for both sides" when only one side can afford representation.

quote:

Moreover, if we want a free society it's important that people retain the rights to do some things that might be morally disagreeable. Free speech includes the right to say nasty or hurtful things and to publish porn that others would condemn. if we start blaming lawyers for representing causes we dislike how does the "girls gone wild" guy get good representation?

Of course. But that doesn't mean Larry Flint's lawyer belongs in the DOJ.

In case it hasn't been noticed. The publishing industry is not as large as it was. The ideas coming from them,is to premise ''saving''while using the newer technologies to make ''profit''. At least for the traditional sense of copyright,the industry is collapsing under its own necktied suit. Not seen in this is the leverage in which 'liscencing'has within this electronic industry. You either ""agree'' with all of the declarations,or you do not take part in whatever is being participated to. Then with most 'intelectual property'is there is any intelect to it whatsoever,to have ones constitutional rights levied against them (the proprieties),along with a government that cannot discern the description in the Separation Of Powers,. Means that it is going to be a good ignorant populace. At least for being kept behind them (IP holders). It is easy enough to read Copyright Law,to know that there is nothing in it for most of us. Much less what future will mean when it continues w/o description for the public,the government,then manufacturers in the electronic score. It does not take much to denote that while Copyrighted effects are well intended accredation. This leaves the majority of us w/o any credential. Then lumpy two agencies together (As telecommunications,IP=copyright) etc. Shows the government intends to have no cause and effect between them. That is the least friction,and easiest path. Mean you've got to separate the idea of having debate,and nullifying it. I want my communications w/o copyright credentials a mandatory monitor between them. Talking copyright is a 'mirror technology'. You dont go past it with them,and their reflection. Communications are 'beyond the mirror',you get past its past tense to be holding a certain present future. Copyright standards are not that future that are a component of any bodies credential.

It's funny to read comments comparing what we know happened with the Bush DoJ and what people expect to happen with Obama's. A couple of weeks in office and people already have strong opinions about opinions that have not been handed down yet.

If Obama's camp hires "attorneys" from a bottom-tier school like Regent University, then I'll start to get scared. Until some important decisions begin to appear, I'm betting on getting some of our Constitutional rights back. I can't imagine losing any more without a revolt.

[QUOTE]No they are not. However the bad apples do what bad apples do best. Spoil it for everyone else.

quote:

It'd be easier if you'd just say what you mean rather than espouse bad cliches, but I assume you're referring to the pirates establishing the purported rationale for DRM. The problem there is that the DRM doesn't stop the pirates, and what it does do is harm the very legitimate customers you no doubt think should stop "defending piracy" when all they want is to legally make backups or play DVDs on Linux or put non-iTMS DRM music on an iPod.

Cause and effect really is pretty simple. In this case a certain number are legally violating copyright. The effect upon the innocent is that we have DRM and other measures.

quote:

The issue for most isn't "not purchasing the content". It's obtaining the content without paying. There is a difference.

quote:

There is a difference, but what makes you think that most people arguing against DRM and eternal copyright terms are on the side of the line you're alleging?

Never equated the "I'm innocent" with "I'm a pirate".

quote:

Doesn't matter if it has the same value or not. It matters if one treats it with the same respect.

quote:

But that's the whole issue, isn't it? It doesn't deserve the same respect because it's not the same thing. People have a constitutional right to property ownership. It's fundamental to our society. By contrast, it wouldn't take a communist revolution to repeal copyright, just a single act of congress. Copyright isn't a "right" (despite the disingenuous name), it's a privilege. An economic incentive. It doesn't deserve the same respect as the foundation of capitalist society.

People also have a right to the sweat of their brow as well. A principle that's older than even the constitution. That's one of the reasons slavery is so onerous. Just because one is a creation of one's mind instead primarily of one's muscles doesn't make one worth less than the other. It deserves respect because respect is the fine line between a functional society and a dysfunctional one.

quote:

Copyright isn't an end in itself that deserves to be furthered for its own sake, it's a trade off that should be pushed only so far as it yields better results for the "Progress of Science and useful Arts." And we are so far over the cost-benefit line on that one that people can no longer see it with a telescope and many have forgotten that it exists.

Oh we agree that the present copyright scheme has issues. The problem I have with some is how they choose to "solve" it.

Originally posted by Ostracus:Cause and effect really is pretty simple. In this case a certain number are legally violating copyright. The effect upon the innocent is that we have DRM and other measures.

Okay, in order to (successfully) make a cause and effect argument, you're going to have to prove that there's a logical reason to use DRM as a response to piracy (in other words, for said cause to produce said effect). Can you? That is, can you demonstrate that DRM is a countermeasure to piracy, and not merely a completely unrelated action performed for a different reason?

Okay, let me save you the time of trying. You can't; DRM has 0 impact on piracy. It cannot stop, inhibit, or even make less convenient piracy, and the very people that are performing said piracy suffer no negative effects from DRM. Therefore it is either a completely irrational and logically flawed action against piracy, or an action entirely unrelated to piracy, and performed either for some other reason, or no reason at all.

Giving control to anyone over your life is a fucking clusterfuck. Obama is just another stooge in the gathering of stooges that have b*ttfucked this country for years. You people should really wake up. The same ineffectual morons that appointing these scumbags are the same ineffectual morons that have been screwing America and the rest of the world. The leopard doesn't change his spots....

Same - same - same from a different side of the aisle. In four years I will spare you the I told you so. I can't believe America has become this fucking dumb.

Thanks for the guarantee. I'll assume that it's worth what I paid for it.

At least you get to feel satisfied at your positive contribution to the on-topic discussion we're having... Roll Eyes

Actually this is precisely on-topic. If appointments such as these had happened under bush we would have received an article from Ars about how the evil administration was robbing us of rights and in bed with big buisness. But it is Obama, so it is okay. It shows either that the criticisms about bush were BS or the criticism really are not that valid, if they don't mean anything when "our guy" does it.

"The issue for most isn't "not purchasing the content". It's obtaining the content without paying. There is a difference."

Why should I pay for content that would be free by now if the media mafia did not pay off government to subvert fair use and copy right?

I think you are missing the point here the media industry has become mafioso like only instead of big Italian thugs breaking knees we have suits and lawyers hassling mothers who dare share a video of their kid walking/dance on youtube with illicitly disturbed content in that video.

The the industry has pretty much made themselves the enemy of the world with the mentality of absolute discretionary control, they should focus on profits made from distribution and not mere distribution itself less we have "MP3 police"(revenuers) like Brittan.

So I will gladly don the wooden leg and eye patch of the social pirate until big content realizes its proper place in the world.

Anita ManPretty much Bama is nothing more than a Suit with a high IQ he can;t do much because of how government works and poor old Mcsame would not have a clue about anything outside the military.

Buch.co was jsut a mess nothing but CEOs and failed CEOs running the executive branch like it was a company they can do anything with.

If anything I hope Obama leans it back to being part of government and away from being the center of government...

Originally posted by Ostracus:Cause and effect really is pretty simple. In this case a certain number are legally violating copyright. The effect upon the innocent is that we have DRM and other measures.

Okay, in order to (successfully) make a cause and effect argument, you're going to have to prove that there's a logical reason to use DRM as a response to piracy (in other words, for said cause to produce said effect). Can you? That is, can you demonstrate that DRM is a countermeasure to piracy, and not merely a completely unrelated action performed for a different reason?

Okay, let me save you the time of trying. You can't; DRM has 0 impact on piracy. It cannot stop, inhibit, or even make less convenient piracy, and the very people that are performing said piracy suffer no negative effects from DRM. Therefore it is either a completely irrational and logically flawed action against piracy, or an action entirely unrelated to piracy, and performed either for some other reason, or no reason at all.

Three things. One I don't think you can make a "0" statement any more than I can make a "100" statement. Two the "effect" in "cause and effect" doesn't have to be logical or even rational. Three the part you're leaving out are those persuaded to not pirate due to measures like DRM and others.

I think you are missing the point here the media industry has become mafioso like only instead of big Italian thugs breaking knees we have suits and lawyers hassling mothers who dare share a video of their kid walking/dance on youtube with illicitly disturbed content in that video.

I haven't missed the point. I simply choose not to make every content creator out to be a villain.

But you have to admit big content is at the least leaning to being villainous in tis grab for absolution(IE absolute control over distribution).

Even the smaller content owners whoa re trying to get their sht freely distributed are being hounded by the process and tactics used by big content the damage to net radio alone stiffed the industry and slowed change because they have made sure that regardless of being part of the industry you have to pay them in order to have your sht broadcasted online. The industry has forgotten what broadcasting is for and have gone to great lengths to squelch anything that obscures their monopoly on all music distribution.

Don't misconstrue hatred for the content conglomerates for hate for the CP/IP creator they are pretty much used condoms in the process, some make it only to become cattle highly controlled by the industry that's its own worst enemy.

Content owners are the "villains" here not the artists that more oft than not are as abused as consumer.

======================As for DRM the cost of DRM offsets the cost of maybe 10% of sales, the trouble is the cost of DRM is not worth it because games need to either make it big or go home, or did you forget the creators of Cyisis whining about thier game not selling as good as it could with them aiming at a nich in a nich PC gamers market.

DRM is a lost cause because it dose not save enough money, though if you have a online account setup and DRM that activates online options and features through it leaving offline mode untouched by the DRM, allow people to to use points from games to buy MP3s,pictures,digi guides,ect while allowing them to charge their cards for more points to spend this could well create the prefect DRM setup.

But as long as DRM focuses to control distribution through lack luster and inept means its doomed and a loss to everyone but the DRM providers.